Read Time: 05 minutes
The high court noted that it was obvious that the record of the corporation is being manipulated by those having vested interests
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Rajesh Patil recently observed that by issuing inconsistent area statements, the BMC was playing with the precious lives of human beings.
"They are also indicative of amalaize in the state of affairs of the Corporation. By issuing such inconsistent area statements, the Corporation appears to be playing with precious lives of human beings and the rights of the occupants of the old and dilapidated buildings," the bench observed
The high court was hearing a plea filed by one Yasin Gulam Hussain Esmail against BMC and developer Cherrysons Estates Pvt Limited.
The high court recorded that the corporation in its area statement of March 16 showed that the carpet area under the occupation of the first floor of the building on plot No.83 was 174.49 sq. mtrs and normally such an area statement would have to be taken as conclusive proof of statements made therein. However, the corporation issued another area statement on 20th May 2023 and which was completely inconsistent with the area statement dated 16th March 2023.
Therefore, the court concluded that it was obvious that the record of the corporation is being manipulated by those having vested interests.
The court then noted that the occupants were in a dilemma because if they vacate the buildings, the evidence available for taking correct measurements of the carpet area under occupation will vanish and if they continue to occupy such dangerous buildings, their lives themselves will be in danger.
As a result, the court directed that the area statement of 16th March should be considered and the petitioner should be given all benefits including alternate accommodation.
"In this view of the matter, we direct that the carpet area of 174.49 sq. mtrs. stated in the area statement dated 16th March, 2023 (page 75) shall be the carpet area under occupation of the Petitioner and all entitlements of the Petitioner regarding alternate accommodation, if any, accommodation in redeveloped property, if any, shall be determined with reference to this area i.e. 174.49 sq. mtrs," the court directed.
The division bench also asked the petitioner to vacate the premises within 10 days from the date of the order while making it clear that any continuation of occupation of premises by the petitioner in the building in question from the date of order and onwards shall be at the own risk and danger of the petitioner.
Case title: Yasin Gulam Hussain Esmail vs BMC
Please Login or Register
